1887
Volume 73, Issue 1
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

Abstract

Cepstral decomposition is beneficial for highlighting certain geological features within the particular quefrency bands which may be deeply buried within the wide quefrency range of the seismic data. Converting seismic traces into the corresponding cepstrum components can better analyse some characteristics of underground strata than the traditional spectral decomposition methods. We propose the sliding windowed differential cepstrum–based coherence analysis approach to delineate the fault features. First, the data are decomposed using a sliding windowed differential cepstrum, which results in multi‐cepstrum data of corresponding quefrency of certain bandwidth. These different multi‐cepstrum data may highlight the different stratigraphic features in a certain quefrency band. We select the first‐order common quefrency volume as the featured attribute. Then, eigenstructure‐based coherence is applied on the first‐order common quefrency data volume to statistically obtain the fault detection result with a finer and sharper image. Synthetic data and field data examples show that the proposed method has the ability to better visualize all the possible subtle and minor faults present in the data more accurately and discernibly than the traditional coherence method. Compared with the ant‐tracking method, the proposed method is more effective in revealing the major faults. It is hoped that this work will complement current fault detection methods with the addition of the cepstral‐based method.

© 2025 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. © 2024 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13633
2024-12-20
2026-01-20

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13633
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bahorich, M. & Farmer, S. (1995) 3‐D seismic discontinuity for faults and stratigraphic features: the coherence cube. The Leading Edge, 14, 1053–1058.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakker, P. (2002) Image structure analysis for seismic interpretation. Ph.D. thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Basir, H.M., Javaherian, A. & Yaraki, M.T. (2013) Multi‐attribute ant‐tracking and neural network for fault detection: a case study of an Iranian oilfield. Journal of Geophysics & Engineering, 10(1), 015009.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bogert, B.P., Healey, M.J.R. & Tukey, J.W. (1963) The quefrency analysis of time series for echoes: cepstrum, pseudo‐autocovariance, cross‐cepstrum and saphe cracking. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Time Series Analysis. New York, Wiley. pp. 209–243.
  5. Cao, J.X., Tian, R.F. & He, X.Y. (2011) Seismic‐print analysis and hydrocarbon identification. American Geophysical Union. AGU Fall Meeting 2011, Abstracts S33B‐011.
  6. Cao, J., Jiang, X., Xue, Y., Tian, R., Xiang, T. & Cheng, M. (2022) The state‐of‐art techniques of hydrocarbon detection and its application in ultra‐deep carbonate reservoir characterization in Sichuan basin, China. Frontiers in Earth Science, 1, 851828.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Dewett, D.T. & Henza, A.A. (2016) Spectral similarity fault enhancement. Interpretation, 4(1), SB149–SB159.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Ferrand, T.P., Nielsen, S., Labrousse, L., Schubnel, A. (2021) Scaling seismic fault thickness from the laboratory to the field. Journal of Geophysical Research Solid Earth, 126(3), e2020JB020694.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Freeman, B., Yielding, G. & Badley, M. (1990) Fault correlation during seismic interpretation. First Break, 8(3), 87–95.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Gersztenkorn, A. & Marfurt, K.J. (1999) Eigenstructure‐based coherence computations as an aid to 3‐D structural and stratigraphic mapping. Geophysics, 64, 1468–1479.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Hall, M. (2006) Predicting bed thickness with cepstral decomposition. The Leading Edge, 25(2), 199–204.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Jie, Q., Gabriel, M. & Kurt, M. (2017) A workflow to skeletonize faults and stratigraphic features. Geophysics, 82(4), O57–O70.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Li, F., Qi, J., Lyu, B. & Marfurt, K.J. (2018) Multispectral coherence. Interpretation, 6(1), T61–T69.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Mahadik, R., Singh, G. & Routray, A. (2022) Multispectral coherence analysis for better fault visualization in seismic data. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 19, 5000905.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Martin, G.S., Wiley, R. & Marfurt, K.J. (2006) Marmousi2: an elastic upgrade for Marmousi. The Leading Edge, 25(2), 156–166.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Marfurt, K.J., Farmer, S.L., Bahorich, M.S., Kirlin, R.L. (1998) 3‐D seismic attributes using a semblance‐based coherency algorithm. Geophysics, 63, 1150–1165.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Marfurt, K.J. (2017) Interpretational aspects of multispectral coherence. In: 79th Annual International Conference and Exhibition, EAGE, Extended Abstracts, 12–15 June 2017, Paris, France. Utrecht, the Netherlands, EAGE. pp. 1–5.
  18. Polydoros, A. & Fam, A.T. (1981) The differential cepstrum: definition and properties. Proceedings – IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, 4, 77–80.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Reddy, G.R. & Rao, V.V. (1987) On the computation of complex cepstrum through differential cepstrum. Signal Processing, 13, 79–83.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Sajid, M. & Ghosh, D.P. (2014) Increasing the robustness of homomorphic deconvolution for non‐stationary seismic wavelet. Asian Journal of Earth Science, 7, 10–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Scheuer, T.E. & Wagner, D.E. (1985) Deconvolution by autocepstral windowing. Geophysics, 50(10), 1533–1540.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Stoffa, P.L., Buhl, P. & Bryan, G.M. (1974) The application of homomorphic deconvolution to shallow‐water marine seismology – Part I: Models; Part II: Real data. Geophysics, 39, 401–416.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Taner, M.T. & Koehler, F. (1969) Velocity spectra‐digital computer derivation applications of velocity functions. Geophysics, 34, 859–881.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Tribolet, J.M. & Member, S. (1977) A new phase unwrapping algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing, 25(2), 170–177.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Ulrych, T.J. (1971) Application of homomorphic deconvolution to seismology. Geophysics, 36(4), 650–660.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Van Bemmel, P.P. & Pepper, R.E. (2000) Seismic signal processing method and apparatus for generating a cube of variance values, U.S. Patent US6151555 A.
  27. Wu, X.M. (2017) Directional structure‐tensor‐based coherence to detect seismic faults and channels. Geophysics, 82(2), A13–A17.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Xue, Y.J., Cao, J.X., Tian, R.F., Du, H.K. & Yao, Y. (2016) Wavelet‐based cepstrum decomposition of seismic data and its application in hydrocarbon detection. Geophysical Prospecting, 64(6), 1441–1453.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Xue, Y.J., Wang, X.J., Liu, Z.G., Wen, W., Yang, J., Li, D.F. & Zhang, X.X. (2024) Application of variational mode decomposition‐based Hilbert marginal differential cepstrum for hydrocarbon detection, Geophysical Prospecting, 72(2), 390–420.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. You, J. & Cao, J. (2020) Full‐wave‐equation depth extrapolation for migration using matrix multiplication. Geophysics, 85(6), S395–S403.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13633
Loading
Seismic fault detection with sliding windowed differential cepstrum–based coherence analysis
Geophysical Prospecting 73, 345 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13633
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13633
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13633
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): interpretation; signal processing; theory

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error